W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Are generic resources intentional?

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:01:36 -0400
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
Message-Id: <1244628096.3705.62.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 22:45 +0100, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> > Why not, "can emit a response to some kind of access protocol"  ? That seems
> > to handle all the present and all the likely future cases, be unambiguous,
> > and (by philosophical standards) vividly clear and unambiguous. And it has
> > the great merit of talking about the **actual resource** rather than an
> > awww:representation of it, which (latter) is what gets conveyed in messages,
> > in fact.
> 
> What does  "can emit a response to some kind of access protocol"  the answer to?
> Notably, it doesn't include things like text files with html in them.

Sure it can.  If you think of these things as functions from time and
requests to representations then its representations still may change
over time (as the file is modified) even if at any given time it always
emits the same representation regardless of the request.  Or, if you
take Roy's "curried" view (see
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2008Apr/0047.html )
of these things being functions from time to representation sets, then
even if the representation set is a singleton set at a given time it
still may be a different singleton set at another time, when the file is
modified.


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 10:02:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 June 2009 10:02:09 GMT